Yesterday, a Humboldt County jury convicted 31-year-old Jake Henry Combs of first degree murder for the January 6, 2022 killing of 25-year-old Trevor John Earley of Alderpoint. Additionally, the jury found Combs intentionally discharged a firearm, causing Earley’s death. Combs faces 50 years to life in prison.
After hours of socializing together, Earley, Combs and others, were at Combs’ home when his large aggressive dog bit through Earley’s nose. Earley became upset and threatened the dog. Sometime later, while Earley chatted on the front porch with a friend, Combs retrieved his loaded 9mm pistol from his backpack, walked up to Earley from the side, and, without warning, Combs shot Earley in the head. Combs immediately fled the scene, but was apprehended by law enforcement on Highway 36.
Deputy District Attorney Whitney Timm, who prosecuted the murder, said, “I am grateful for the excellent investigative work of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office, California Highway Patrol, and the California Department of Justice - Bureau of Forensics. I extend my deepest condolences to Trevor Earley’s family.” District Attorney Stacey Eads hopes the family and loved ones of Mr. Earley find some degree of peace and closure in today’s outcome and expresses her appreciation for the jury and their service.
The case was prosecuted with assistance from District Attorney Investigator Martin Morris and Victim Witness Advocate Michala Pelren. Local defense attorneys Ben McLaughlin and Emery Welton represented Combs, who is scheduled to be sentenced by the Honorable Kaleb Cockrum on September 15, 2023.
Clarence Thomas’ Beneficial Friendship With a GOP Megadonor
In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.
Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.
In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.
Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.
Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties.
“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and leading expert on recusals. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” referring to the flight on the private jet.
Justices are almost entirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself.
ProPublica’s investigation sheds new light on how luxury travel has given prominent political donors — including one who has had cases before the Supreme Court — intimate access to the most powerful judges in the country. Another wealthy businessman provided expensive vacations to two members of the high court, ProPublica found. On his Alaska trip, Alito stayed at a commercial fishing lodge owned by this businessman, who was also a major conservative donor. Three years before, that same businessman flew Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, on a private jet to Alaska and paid the bill for his stay.
Such trips would be unheard of for the vast majority of federal workers, who are generally barred from taking even modest gifts.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk suspended the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone more than 20 years ago, arguing that it was flawed and invalid. Kacsmaryk issued a temporary stay on his ruling for seven days to allow the Biden administration to appeal. The ruling is likely to pull the drug from pharmacy shelves unless a higher court intervenes while the case moves through the appeal process.
But just hours later, a district judge in Washington state issued a conflicting ruling in a separate case, prohibiting the FDA from taking the drug off the market. Despite the confusion caused by these dueling decisions, legal experts say even the threat of a legal gray area is likely to cause providers to stop distributing the drug.
Mifepristone is the first of a two-drug regimen that makes up the majority of abortions in the U.S., according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and policy center. It blocks the pregnancy hormone progesterone and is also used to manage miscarriages.
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision last June rescinded federal abortion protections, it left intact states’ ability to set their own abortion laws. California legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom jumped at the chance to make the state a beacon for progressive politics, even approving financial assistance for people in other states seeking abortions in California.
But Kacsmaryk’s ruling addresses the FDA’s authority nationally, and leaves little room for states to mitigate the fallout.
“We’re in uncharted territory,” Lisa Matsubara, an attorney for Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and vice president of policy, told CalMatters a day after Kacsmaryk heard arguments in the case in mid-March. “It will take some time to understand how this will play out in California.”
The twins, just 3 at the time, had lived a difficult first few years of life. San Diego County had removed them from their parents’ custody that year due to allegations of drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence in the home, Baca said. The brother and sister were in foster care with Baca when their father died in an accident.
Hoping to secure the children a future nest egg, Baca filed for them to receive survivor’s benefits from the Social Security Administration for children whose parents have died.
But it was the twins’ legal parent at the time — the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency — that stepped in to receive their money. For the next two years, the county put their survivors’ benefits into its own coffers. Records show it was an effort to pay itself back for having issued monthly checks to Baca to cover the children’s basic needs.
According to county and federal records Baca showed to CalMatters, the money taken totaled nearly $15,000 per child. Baca said she received foster care checks of about $1,000 a month per child, meaning the county partially recouped its costs using the Social Security benefits.
The funds seizure is common among child welfare agencies in California and nationwide – and it’s legal.
But forces are building to halt the practice, which advocates say has been in place for at least two decades. A growing number of states are banning it, and advocates are seeking to eliminate it in California through a court challenge and a bill set to be introduced in the state Legislature next week.
The nation’s largest public pension fund in the 1990s and early 2000s sold long-term care insurance with so-called inflation-protection that members believed would shield them from dramatic spikes in premiums. CalPERS nonetheless hiked long-term care insurance rates by 85 percent in 2012 and continued to raise fees in subsequent years, straining household budgets for retirees on fixed incomes.
The settlement, approved by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge earlier this month, would resolve a lawsuit that centers on that steep 2012 fee increase. The settlement cannot take effect until plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit vote on it in a process that’s expected to take place between April and early June, according to court records.
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System pays for long-term care out of a specific fund that is separate from the $443 billion portfolio that supports pensions for its 2 million members. The long-term care fund had about $4.9 billion as of June and about 105,000 active policies, according to CalPERS.
The agreement is the second court-approved settlement in the case. It is significantly less expensive for CalPERS than the first one.
The previous agreement would have cost CalPERS as much as $2.7 billion and required retirees to drop their long-term care plans in exchange for payments of as much as $50,000 apiece.
“This plan is going to run on a basis that is economically solvent without regard to what was said 20-plus years ago when it was first offered.”
los angeles Superior Court Judge William Highberger
Thousands of retirees chose security over cash and rejected that agreement because they wanted to retain to long-term care insurance, according to attorneys representing the plaintiffs.